As Ingredient Prices Soar, What Solutions Can Poultry Nutritionists Offer? By Leonel Mejia, Associate Technical Director, Cobb Vantress

Introduction

The poultry industry continues to face many challenges to obtain maximum profits. It’s an industry that relies on maximum efficiency and small margins. Feed accounts for nearly 70% of the total production cost. Therefore, the impact that feed cost has on input costs and profitability is constantly being scrutinized and considered by many as a “pressure point” in decision-making. It is the responsibility of the nutritionist to constantly evaluate alternatives that may reduce feed costs without affecting maximum profitability.

From a nutritional standpoint, protein and energy represent the majority of the cost in a poultry diet. These nutrients represent a major opportunity for nutritionists to impact overall feed cost. Improving feed utilization should always be considered a priority. The use of near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy technology, enzyme supplementation, and the inclusion of alternative feed ingredients are some alternatives that will be discussed in this article.

Enzyme Supplementation

Feed enzymes largely focus on improved feed cost savings (through improved feed utilization) rather than increases in live performance. They represent one of the greatest tools available to nutritionists to improve feed utilization. Moreover, enzymes reduce the environmental impact of animal production and have the potential to improve gut health and animal welfare. Phytases, carbohydrases, and proteases are used for improving nutrient digestibility of phytate-bound phosphorus, removal of non-starch polysaccharides (NSP) that interfere with energy utilization, and protein digestion respectively.

Today, phytases are commonly used in the industry, and recently, carbohydrases and proteases have become very attractive to nutritionists. Current increases in corn and soybean meal costs have presented an opportunity for nutritionists to use carbohydrases and proteases. The use of carbohydrases should depend on the major NSP components of the main diet ingredients. Cereals, such as corn and wheat, contain a high amount of arabinoxylans, with wheat arabinoxylans almost doubling the amount of corn arabinoxylans (Table 1). In contrast, soybean meal contains a small percentage of arabinoxylans but a higher percentage of pectins and oligosaccharides.

Table 1. Relative NSPs (%) in feed ingredients.¹

¹Adapted from Ward 2014

The bird’s intestinal tract is not fully developed at hatch and does not produce critical enzymes (amylase, trypsin, chymotrypsin, and lipase) required for nutrient digestion. Throughout the first days post-hatch and before intestinal maturation is achieved, providing the bird with supplemental enzymes to improve energy and protein digestibility is a strategy to consider. In addition, the types of NSPs in the diet change from starter to finisher diets, so supplementing different types of carbohydrases represents a possible solution. In a typical feeding program, a protein source, such as soybean meal, will decline from starter to finisher while the energy source of the diet, such as corn or wheat, will increase, causing changes in the types of NSPs in the diet. Therefore, addressing this issue with only one type of enzyme throughout the feeding program will only partially alleviate the problem.

In some instances, the bird only has the capability to produce very small amounts of an enzyme. This is the case for phytase, which must be supplemented in the diet throughout the bird’s grow-out period. Phytases increase phytate breakdown and improve plant phosphorus absorption.

The major benefit of using supplemental enzymes is reducing feed costs. Carbohydrase and protease use vary from region to region depending on substrate availability and ingredient quality. Average uplift values for carbohydrases are between 40 and 100 kcal/kg of feed. Phytases are able to fulfill between 0.10% and 0.20% available phosphorus and 0.08% to 0.12% calcium in poultry diets. Enzymes provide the nutritionist with a tool to optimize feed use with the potential to reduce nutrient cost.

Near-Infrared Spectrometry (NIRS) Technology

Over the years, the industry has depended on wet chemistry analyses to determine macronutrients in feed. Proximate analyses of feed ingredients typically include moisture, crude ash, crude protein, ether extracts, crude fiber, and nitrogen-free extractives contents. In some instances, urease activity and mycotoxin analyses can be conducted. Most integrators have the capacity to perform wet chemistry analyses in their feed mills. The constraints for wet chemistry analyses include the time it takes to perform the analysis, amount of chemical reagents needed, and the cost. If these analyses are done in an independent laboratory, variability from lab to lab exists and must be taken into consideration.

Currently, NIRS technology has been widely accepted as a means to perform nutrient analyses in feed ingredients. NIRS provides a quick, nondestructive and quantitative analysis of feed ingredients commonly used in the animal industry. Each organic component of feed absorbs and reflects near-infrared light differently. The feed is exposed to the light, and by measuring the different reflectance characteristics, the quantity of the components in the feed sample are determined.

The benefits of using an NIRS system is that the analysis takes considerably less time, is considered safer because there is no use of reagents, more analyses can be conducted per day, and the sample preparation is simpler when compared to wet chemistry analyses. In addition, NIRS analyses allow nutritionists to control nutrient variability in feed formulation, which is important as variability in the nutritional quality of feedstuffs may result in incorrectly balanced feeds. There might be periods in which nutritionists might be over-formulating or under-formulating energy and amino acids, which can definitely impact performance and production costs. During periods of high ingredient prices, integrators could be losing a lot of money. NIRS systems can provide nutritionists real-time nutrient analyses of ingredients and diets.

In the U.S., NIRS technology has had limited use due to its high initial investment and the labor cost associated with its use. In some parts of the world, integrators are able to dedicate one employee to manage the NIRS system. Another factor to consider is that generally, the U.S. has good-quality feed ingredients, which is not always the case in other parts of the world. For example, some countries in Europe import their soybean meal from the U.S., Argentina or Brazil at different times of the year, which can vary significantly in nutritional composition (Table 2). Additionally, more alternative feed ingredients are used in other parts of the world, mainly driven by the high cost of importing corn and soybean meal. These alternative feed ingredients tend to be highly variable and thus must be analyzed for nutritional composition.

Table 2. Crude protein and total amino acid content from soybean meals of different origins.^2,3

²88% Dry matter

³Adapted from Mateos, 2009

Inclusion of Alternative Feed Ingredients

Market price volatility and availability of raw ingredients for poultry diets increase the pressure to reduce feed costs. When the price of dietary raw ingredients dramatically increases, the use of alternative, less traditional, raw ingredients may become more economically attractive. An alternative feed ingredient would be one that is not used on a regular basis, whose nutrient composition has not been fully defined, and for which a maximum level of inclusion is unclear. Therefore, alternative ingredients vary from region to region. An ingredient may be considered alternative in one region but may be commonly used in another region.

The continued pressure to reduce feed costs demands a better understanding of the different ingredient alternatives, their potential use, and limitations. Some commonly known alternative feed ingredients are corn distillers, dried grains with solubles, sorghum, corn gluten meal, canola meal, cassava meal, rice bran, bakery meal, palm kernel meal, and cottonseed meal. Considerations of availability, nutritional composition, antinutritional factors, handling properties, and processing characteristics should be evaluated before using an alternative feed ingredient. Also, some ingredients are more suitable for broilers than broiler breeders and vice versa. Nutritionists should first develop confidence in the quality of the alternative ingredients and reduce the risk by formulating low inclusion levels. In order to take advantage of reducing costs by using alternative feed ingredients, nutritionists may consider increasing the rate of sampling analyses and sourcing the ingredient from one supplier, if possible.

Summary

Poultry production involves converting feed into meat or eggs. Feed costs represent approximately 70% of the total costs of production. Higher feed efficiency will lower the cost of production, which will increase profitability. Enzyme supplementation, NIRS technology, and alternative feed ingredients are some of the available solutions for optimizing feed efficiency.

About the Author:

Dr. Leonel Mejia has 10 years of experience working in the poultry industry and has been with Cobb for seven years. He is a technical director within the Central America, Mexico, and Caribbean (CAMEX) region. Leonel holds bachelor’s and master’s degrees in animal science and a Ph.D. in poultry science.

As the cost of feed ingredients increases, nutritionists may have some solutions to help producers reduce the cost of feed.

Photo Source: Cobb-Vantress

Feed represents about 70% of the total cost of producing poultry.

Photo Source: Cobb-Vantress

References

Ward NE. Choosing enzyme solution depends on many factors. Feedstuffs. 2014;86:1-4.

Mateo CD. Evaluation of the Protein Quality of Soybean Meals from Different Sources in Broiler Chicks Fed with Semi-Purified Diets. Philippine Journal of Science. 2009;138:153.